Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al

Filing 1036

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 1006 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

TESSERA, INC.,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

No. C 05-4063 CW

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO SEAL
(Docket No. 1006)

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.;
SPANSION, LLC; SPANSION, INC.;
SPANSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.;
ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR
ENGINEERING, INC.; ASE (U.S.),
INC.; CHIPMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
CHIPMOS U.S.A., INC.; SILICONWARE
PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.;
SILICONWARE USA, INC.;
STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.;
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.; STATS
CHIPPAC, INC.; STATS CHIPPAC
(BVI), INC.; and STATS CHIPPAC,
LTD.,
Defendants.
________________________________/
Defendants and Counterclaimants Siliconware Precision

17
Industries Co., Ltd. and Siliconware USA, Inc. (collectively,
18
SPIL) move to seal Exhibit A to their joint stipulation with
19
Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. to dismiss Tessera’s tenth cause of action
20
against SPIL.

Exhibit A contains royalty reports with financial

21
information about payments made by SPIL pursuant to the TCC
22
License Agreement.
23
The parties seek to seal court records that are closely
24
related to the merits of its case.

To establish that the

25
documents are sealable, the party who has designated them as
26
confidential “must overcome a strong presumption of access by
27
showing that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual
28

1

findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the

2

public policies favoring disclosure.’”

3

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

4

id. at 678 (explaining that a less stringent “good cause” standard

5

is applied to sealed discovery documents attached to

6

non-dispositive motions).

7

showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by

8

stating in general terms that the material is considered to be

9

confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
Cf.

This cannot be established simply by

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document

11

under seal.

12

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

SPIL has submitted a declaration attesting that “public

13

disclosure of the royalty payments made under the TCC License

14

Agreement would harm SPIL by providing its competitors with

15

proprietary information regarding its services, including, the

16

amount of royalties paid to Tessera.”

17

Heafey Decl. ¶ 5.

Having reviewed Exhibit A, the Court concludes that SPIL has

18

established that it is sealable.

19

file under seal is GRANTED (Docket No. 1006).

20

of the date of this Order, SPIL shall electronically file under

21

seal Exhibit A to the stipulation of dismissal.

22

Accordingly, SPIL’s motion to
Within three days

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25

Dated:

8/10/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2